May 6, 2016

OK, no surprise... I loved Captain America: Civil War. I was fairly certain I'd like it, of course, but it surpassed my expectations, which were well heightened by all the positive comments from everyone who saw it before me. (And that seems to be everyone I know. I will have my revenge, mark my words.)

So here are some scatted thoughts, as usual... (If I had no shame I would title this post "7 Things I Loved about Captain America: Civil War... and 1 I Didn't," but with any luck Google will pick up on that anyway.)

1. The movie was very well paced, and I was never tempted to check the time, which is impressive for a 147-minute movie. There was a point at which I thought the movie could have been essentially finished, except there was a scene from the trailers that hadn't come up yet, but this was a minor lull.

2. Despite the inclusion of a dozen heroes, several of them appearing throughout the film, the Russo brothers did a great job keeping the focus most of the time on Cap and the main secondary characters, Falcon, Bucky, and Iron Man. There were times that it did feel like an Avengers movie—especially during the fight scene between the two teams, which was much longer (and better) than I expected—but these spots were occasional enough that the movie still felt like a Cap movie. (Although, to be fair, there was enough substantial Iron Man content that it almost could have been titled something stupid like Captain America v Iron Man. Like anyone would do that.)

3. The story itself was not as close to the comics version as I expected—and I didn't expect it to be very close at all—but I think the changes worked well within the context of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. For instance, as many people noted ahead of the film, not many of the heroes we've seen in the films have secret identities, so that aspect of the comics story wouldn't translate well to the film, and it was wisely left out. Nonetheless, the movie did touch of several iconic images and lines from the comics, which I found enormously gratifying (being rather fond of the comics, as you may have heard). Would I have loved more explicit discussion of the issues underlying the conflict? Of course, but I was satisfied with how much there was, and the dialogue on this front was concise and on target, hitting the most important points of the debate. (I expect to be talking more about that aspect of the film in the near future.)

4. The action scenes were simply incredible, both those with two characters as well as a dozen, and felt more visceral than Whedon's in the two Avengers films, even when all the heroes were onscreen at the same time. Maybe it was the Russo brothers' more subdued color palette, or the slight jerkiness of the camera (which, to be honest, became somewhat tiresome), but these scenes were more reminiscent of a war movie (appropriately enough) than a traditional superhero film. Kudos to everyone involved in these scenes, most of all the sound people—every time one of the heroes got hit, was thrown in a wall, or fell 50 feet to the ground, I flinched thanks to the combination of performance, cinematography, and especially the sound effects. (But at the same time, even when Cap and Iron Man went all out on each other, there was none of the senseless brutality we saw in that other superhero battle movie this year.)

5. Black Panther... ah, my king! He could have easily been the star of this movie if any of the other characters had let me down, and I am looking forward even more (if that were possible) to his solo film. Chadwick Boseman gave T'Challa a thoroughly regal demeanor, with the perfect combination of determination, class, and fierceness. The Panther's movements were magnificently graceful, especially the way he would land after a jump or being thrown. And even with his short time in the film, we saw his character experience growth.

6. I am a big fan of both Tobey Maguire's and Andrew Garfield's portrayals of Peter Parker/Spider-Man (though not necessarily of every film they were in), and Tom Holland's version adds yet another unique take on the character. He played a relatively small role in the movie, and didn't have much to do with the Civil War storyline itself (unlike in the comics, where he was a major player), but we see much more of him than I expected, in and out of costume.

7. The Stan Lee cameo was perfect. 'Nuff said.

If I have one criticism with the film, it's with the ending. I can't say much more without giving anything away, so I'll just say that I thought some things were left unresolved, but I trust the Russo brothers to be setting up their first Avengers film (which cannot come soon enough).

The ending notwithstanding, I thought the movie was exceptional. It was more of an action movie than a political one, but there was enough of the latter to make this fan of the comics story happy.

April 1, 2016

I saw Batman v Superman last Thursday, and meant to get a post up more quickly, but it took me this long to digest all the Snyder-y goodness packed into those two-and-a-half hours of sheer cinematic bludgeoning.

Let me list some of things I loved about this movie (there may be spoilers):

I was very happy when Superman broke the fourth wall and addressed the audience, admitting that he was completely out of character killing Zod at the end of Man of Steel, and apologized for the resulting disillusionment of the next generation of Superman fans. But the following 20-minute discussion with Batman about why heroes don't kill was even better, and validated my faith in Snyder that he never really thought that Superman killing could ever be appropriate. (In general, the in-depth treatment of all the issues raised in the movie was much appreciated; I was so relieved Snyder didn't just gloss over these points to focus on grandiose, emotionally-laden set pieces with little meaningful content or narrative coherence.)

Jesse Eisenberg's subtle, delicately nuanced portrayal of Lex Luthor added the gravitas necessary to offset the goofy antics of the title heroes. Most of the film was a bright and giddy celebration of fun-filled adventure and superheroics, and it needed Luthor to lend it solemnity to give it the careful balance between unrestrained joy and emotional depth we've come to expect from Zack Snyder.

Speaking of lighthearted fun, I howled at Batman and Superman's impromptu vaudeville-style tap routine to the Beatles' "Martha My Dear." It allowed Affleck and Cavill the opportunity to show off their dance skills, which will come in handy in Justice League (which my sources tell me will be a broad reworking of A Chorus Line, Snyder's favorite Broadway-themed movie other than all the others).

Wonder Woman was integrated very well throughout the entire movie. I was so afraid she'd be shoehorned into the end of the movie to clean up after the boys nearly killed each other (silly, right?), or used for gratuitous eye-candy earlier, but I should have known Snyder was better that. (That would have been a real sucker punch indeed.)

The dream sequence where Batman turns into the Punisher and then Superman turns into the Punisher and then one Punisher goes all Punisher on the other Punisher but it's even better because it's Batman and Superman and everyone really wants them to be the Punisher because wow the Punisher's just so awesome and... yeah. The seven-year-old in me who really doesn't understand Batman or Superman loved that part.

My favorite moment: before the final throwdown, when Superman shouted "Speedos!" into Bruce Wayne's pool and Aquaman jumped out and said, "hey, I'm in a movie!"

I could go on, but I'll leave something for my review of the R-rated cut, in which I hope Batman and Superman can really cut loose and engage in some more uncharacteristically brutal violence and the rumored epic breakdance battle, which was too intense for PG-13. (Wait until you see Batman pop and lock... and load!)

August 7, 2015

Why do I feel inspired to write about only the movies I'm disappointed in? Maybe I worry I'll be too fanboy-ish about the movies I love and will fail to say anything insightful about them, sounding like Chris Farley meeting his idols on Saturday Night Live ("You know that movie you were in? ... That was cooool.") Hence, I've written nothing on Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Avengers: Age of Ultron, or Ant-Man (just to name a few), but plenty about Man of Steel... and now its aesthetic cousin, Fantastic Four.

[UPDATE: As has been pointed out to me, I did in fact write about Avengers: Age of Ultron. But it is rather fanboy-ish, isn't it?]

As you may know, I love the Fantastic Four; if you don't, I gushed about them recently over at the Cultural Gutter. Even though I avoided actual reviews of this movie, there was more than enough doubt in the air to dispel any hopes I had that I would be happy with it. I had the worst of expectations. As I told a friend yesterday, I couldn't not see it; I just had to know.

As I watched last night, in a local theater with about a dozen teenagers with nothing better to do on a Thursday evening—what a difference from early showings of other recent superhero flicks, which were packed with diehard fans—I couldn't help but think about Man of Steel. If it had been about any other superpowered person, Man of Steel would have been an interesting and entertaining movie—my problem with it was that the Superman it showed bore little resemblance to the Superman I believe in.

Fantastic Four, on the other hand, did no particular disservice to its characters, if only because they had very little character at all, and faced no tragic dilemma that would have revealed something about their heroic dispositions. This is no fault of the four lead actors, all of whom did the best they could with what they were given. What a horrible waste of talent this was, especially that of Miles Teller and Michael B. Jordan, who have both shone in other work. (And the less said about Doctor Doom, the better. At least he wasn't a blogger, as widely reported earlier.)

My issue with Fantastic Four wasn't the portrayal of the lead characters. It was simply a bad movie. Utterly lifeless, it had no discernible plot, and no drama or suspense—only when the denouement came did you know that the climax had passed. The dialogue was bland and cliched (and not even based on comic book cliches, beyond the awkward insertion of several beloved catchphrases, one introduced in a particularly depressing way).

Visually, it made Man of Steel look like Pee Wee's Playhouse—I don't think the color blue appeared once, much less any other primary colors. Even the other dimension they travel to was disappointing, a slight improvement on the alien sets from the original Star Trek series. (On a brighter note, the flame effect on Johnny Storm was very well done, and the Thing's appearance works better than I imagined, and for the first time in a movie you can see how he would inspire true fear and not just disgust or discomfort.)

As a concept, the Fantastic Four is supposed to be about wonder, adventure, and exploration, but there was none of that in this movie. It's also supposed to be about the relationships between the four members, but there was very little of that in this movie. And it is supposed to be fantastic—and there was definitely none of that in this movie.

P.S. Maybe this will lead people to reconsider the first two Fantastic Four movies, which were far from perfect but captured very well the playful and optimistic spirit of the comic (as well as simply being more entertaining.)

May 1, 2015

1. Loved it. It started like a Bond film with an intense action sequence, expertly shot in a similar fashion to the Battle of New York in the first film, with the focus flowing seamlessly from one character to the next, then calmed down as we saw the threat of Ultron building. Then it was off to the races again, only to be followed by setback, then regrouping for the final battle...

2. ...which was focused on SAVING ALL THE PEOPLE.

3. They SAVED ALL THE PEOPLE.

4. ALL OF THEM.

5. Ok, where was I... oh, right.

6. The focus on the six main Avengers seemed much more even this time, with Black Widow and Hawkeye getting more attention (especially with the surprise revelation that Hawkeye has been married to Velma all this time—no womanizing cad this Clint Barton).

7. I wish Black Widow hadn't been made the captured Avenger that had to be rescued, but that role was played by Hawkeye in the last film, and the others are too powerful. But still.

8. The humor was fantastic—I tried to remember all of my favorite lines but last track twenty minutes into the film. And they weren't all one-off gags: the running joke about Cap's early comment about "language" was fantastic. Even the scene from the preview with the Avengers trying to lift Mjolnir set up Vision's validation in the face of his new friends.

9. The new characters were integrated extremely well. The early antipathy of Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch Pietro and Wanda towards Stark and the Avengers was easily motivated and then dispelled gradually. I was surprised not to see Pietro healing at the end of the film; Wanda was the more longstanding Avenger of the two in the comics, but nonetheless I liked their relationship in the film. And the Vision, wow...

10. The Vision was simply magnificent. One advantage of attending the first showing of the film was the number of diehard fans in the audience, all of whom applauded when Vision rose from his "cocoon." (Not to mention the gasps the first time Wakanda was mentioned.) Paul Bettany played Vision with the quiet dignity he deserved, and I can't wait to see him again.

11. I was a bit put off by Ultron's sense of humor, which is a distinct departure from the comics, but it grew on me, and made excellent use of James Spader's voice talents. And visually, he looked amazing.

12. Similar to Guardians of the Galaxy, teamwork was the focus of this film. The Avengers never really disassembled (even after Wanda's mindgames), so there was no need to rally at the end. I'm talking about the subtle, small types of cooperation, such as the one-two fight moves that Cap and Thor had obviously worked out in practice, and the way Clint and Natasha had each other's back throughout the film.

13. The cameos... well, I won't spoil those. There was Stan Lee, of course, but other MCU players made welcome appearances as well.

14. While the mid-credits bonus scene wasn't spectacular, it was gratifying to see the names of all the heroes—Avengers old, new, and "see ya next time"—in the main credits preceding it.

15. Tony, Tony, Tony... when will you learn? (What am I talking about? See my new post at the And Philosophy blog.) Also nice to see the continuing ideological differences between Tony and Cap referenced but not stressed (there's time for that in Captain America: Civil War).

16. I can't stress this enough: the last quarter of the movie was as much about getting all the people off of the floating city as it was about defeating Ultron. That's what the Avengers risked their necks to do. That's what Fury and Hill brought the helicarrier back for. That's what Clint almost died for—and Pietro did. It's sad that this kind of heroism is notable in a superhero movie, but in a Zack Snyder world, it is.

17. And did anyone fear for reality a little bit when Wanda lost it after Pietro died? I half-expected to see little Tetris pieces flying around.

18. And finally... Natasha and Bruce. I like it because it felt organic, and the scene in which she shares some of her Red Room background with him justified it even more. And of course, Bruce's "I can't be with you, I'm a monster" speech was well appreciated by this Thing.

To sum up, Avengers: Age of Ultron took advantage of the fact that it started with a team already assembled to jump head-first into the action and then spared no time in bringing the main threat to the stage. It was extremely well paced, with excitement, humor, and pathos throughout, and terrific performances by everyone involved. If this is Joss Whedon's farewell to the MCU, he couldn't have done a better job—this was a love letter to the Avengers, Marvel Comics, and to Marvel Zombies everywhere.

June 16, 2013

Before I start, a caveat: I couldn't help but notice the controversy over Man of Steel on Twitter, much of it involving Mark Waid, one of the standard-bearers for a view of Superman I share. Passions are running hot over this one, which is both good and bad—it's good that people are talking this much about a Superman movie (or a DC Comics movie in general), but it's disheartening that they're arguing over the fundamental nature of a character that should be well established by now. Anyway, I've avoided reading any reviews or commentary, so other people may very well have said what I'm about to say, and if so, likely much better.

I'm going to offer some general comments about the movie, and then some discussion about some ethical topics raised by it. I'll keep the spoilers until the second part, and I'll warn you when they're coming.

First, Man of Steel as a movie (not as a Superman movie): I liked it. I loathe long films—90 to 100 minutes is perfect as far as I'm concerned—but even at 143 minutes it didn't feel long, and no parts of it dragged. Henry Cavill impressed me as Clark/Superman, having only seen him in The Tudors, and Amy Adams (whom I've seen in most everything she's done) played an effective Lois, but neither blew me away. The finest perfomances by far were Russell Crowe as Jor-El and Michael Shannon as Zod—both stole every scene they were in, and interactions between them were marvelous to watch. (The filmmakers cleverly found a way for Jor-El to appear throughout the movie despite... well, you know.)

The action scenes were spread throughout the movie nicely, broken up by emotional dialogue or flashback. This was important, because the action scenes themselves were intense—while there was little blood, there was more than enough destruction and explosions to earn the PG-13 rating. (I would not be comfortable taking my kids, 5 and 10, to this movie, and they've seen all the recent Marvel superhero movies.)

Visually, the movie was very stylish. While the Smallville and Metropolis scenes were by necessity reminiscent of past depictions, the designs of Krypton and Kryptonian technology were breathtaking, from their 3-D sculpting technology (for lack of a better term) to the armor the Kryptonians wore on Earth. But the movie was just so dim, like it was all shot through a fine gauze. There were no bright colors at all: Krypton was gray with accents of gray. Smallville was brown. Metropolis was—guess what—gray. And if you thought Superman would bring a ray of sunshine into any of this, you would be wrong. We've all seen the movie costume, all muted red and blue, with just a touch of muted yellow thanks to DC Comics' New 52 redesign. (And don't even get me started on the costume's texture, which reminds me of that rubber thingie you use to open the jar of pasta sauce that's been in your refrigerator since Superman Returns was out.)

But the dull tinge of the movie matched its narrative tone well—this is a dark movie through and through. Not quite Nolan-Batman dark, but more like Webb's Spider-Man but with none of the humor. The team behind The Amazing Spider-Man was able to give us a superhero film starring an upbeat character that fit with the current times but still retained some of the irreverance we expect from Webhead. But Man of Steel, featuring a character whose big red "S" stands for hope, was sorely lacking in hope, optimism, or joy. This is definitely a movie for a generation that is more likely to look in the sky and say "it's a bird, it's a drone—yep, it's a drone" with little hope of seeing a hero.

And nothing illustrates that point better than the ethics-loaded notes in the movie. This is where the SPOILERS start, so read on at your own risk if you have yet to see the movie.

----------

I have very mixed feelings about how Man of Steel showed Superman's heroism and ethical decision-making. Don't get me wrong, there are several inspiring scenes of heroism in the movie, such as the scene from the trailers in which young Clark pushes the schoolbus out of the river (at the risk of revealing his powers), and the scene near the end of the movie in which he destroys the world engine while it robs him of his powers. Other characters get in on the action too: Lois, Perry White, and Jonathan Kent all get chances to be heroic. These were fantastic moments in an otherwise dour film.

Unfortunately, these moments we expect from a superhero movie are overshadowed by other scenes that we don't. Clark/Superman makes some questionable moral choices in the movie, choices that may be understandable if any other person made them, but not Superman (or even any other cinematic superhero outside of Wolverine).

I've written a bit the last couple years about Superman's need to use moral judgment, rather than his incredible powers, to resolve tragic dilemmas, conflicts in principles or duties from which he cannot excape "with clean hands." In the comics, this usually takes the form of Luthor leaving Lois dangling off the ledge at the top of a skyscraper in Metropolis while a tidal wave threatens to wipe out a town in Indonesia. What will Superman do? If he can't save both, he has to make a choice, and by necessity that choice will involve a foregone option.

But guess what? In the comics, he manages to do both, to save Lois and the Indonesians. Because he's Superman. He does the impossible. He doesn't let the situation (or Lex Luthor) define his options—Superman defines his own options. He finds a way.

This is most relevant to the end of the movie when Superman kills Zod. After Lois helped the government scientists send the other Kryptonians and their battleship back to the Phantom Zone, Superman faced Zod alone. Zod indiscriminately used his heat vision to reap destruction and murder on Metropolis, and even after Supes had him in a chokehold, the deadly rays from Zod's eyes crept closer and closer to a small group of innocent bystanders. At the last moment, Superman snapped Zod's neck; Zod fell to the ground and Superman fell to his knees in tears.

Superman's remorse was obvious—and so was mine. (Not everyone felt this way; many in the theater cheered, which I've heard was not an uncommon reaction across the country.) This resolution to the story doen't work for me in a number of ways.

First, if Superman had the strength and control to twist Zod's head to snap his neck, why couldn't he turn Zod's head just to divert it from the bystanders? I can let this one go: Zod is a more experienced fighter than Superman is, and perhaps Superman had to put the last of his might into twisting Zod's head without being able to moderate his exertion sufficiently to avoid killing him. Also, this is a young Superman, fighting a physical equal for the first time in his short career. I can excuse him for not having the experience and wisdom to consider other options—people were going to die and he had to make a choice. I get that.

But I don't blame Superman for what he did in the story—I blame those who wrote the story and chose to portray Superman killing his opponent, presumably to make an "edgy" Superman for the 21st century. Even if I accept that Superman had no other choice in that situation, the people who made the movie had a choice whether to put him in that situation. They didn't have to show Superman killing someone—they chose to. They didn't even wait until the third movie, after his heroic ideals had been established and then his "necessary" compromise takes on more weight. No, they chose to show Superman killing someone in his first movie, thereby setting up his moral code for the rest of this appearances in this cycle of films. (Watch out, Luthor.)

And I find that choice despicable. I know full well that tough decisions sometimes have to be made, and Superman is not immune to them. And I love stories that show that moral struggle. But I also love to see Superman find a way to rise above the moral struggle, to show us that if you try hard enough, think the situation through, and refuse to compromise, you can find a way out.

This won't always work for normal human beings, but Superman isn't a normal human being. Superman is an ideal. The ideal. He shows us the best of what we can be. As Mark Waid said on Twitter, Superman shouldn't be written to more like us—he should be written so we want to be more like him. But this is not how the Man of Steel was written, and that's why it fails as a Superman movie.

----------

I saw Man of Steel Friday afternoon, and Saturday morning I went to Barnes & Noble with my son, who loves superheroes. We always look at both the regular graphic novel section and the rack in the kids' section with superhero books. (And we might happen to pass the philosophy shelves in between, just to make sure all my books are facing outwards. I'm a helper.) There's a new book in the kids' section titled Man of Steel: Superman Saves Smallville that tells a simpler version of the story in the movie, including the climactic ending. But it tells the ending a little differently:

So there were other ways to end the story without Superman killing his enemy—whew, and here I thought it was just me. (Ironically, the one reviewer so far at Amazon says even this book is too violent for small children!) Sure, in the storybook the villain got away. But that's one of the ways superhero movies usually end: either the villain is captured, gets away, or dies by his own hand (as the hero tries to save him, of course). More to the point, that's how Superman movies should end.

Of course, we can easily imagine situations in which Superman would have no choice but to kill his enemy, and skilled creators could craft an engaging story around it. (See my chapter from Superman and Philosophy for one example.) But an argument can be made that not only would it be a bad Superman story, but that it would not be a Superman story at all. Superman isn't the guy who usually does the right thing—Superman is the guy who does the right thing by definition. Any less and it just isn't Superman.

----------

Epilogue: I couldn't find anywhere to mention this, but I was also disturbed by the scene in which Clark lets his father walk into the path of the tornado to save the family dog and help people get to safety. I get that it was supposed to show Clark the folly of hiding his abilities at the cost of innocent lives. But it threatens to introduce an "Uncle Ben" aspect to the Superman mythos in which Clark would forever be plagued by the knowledge that his father died because he stood back. Furthermore, it made no sense in story: Clark could have done exactly what Jonathan did (rescue the dog and help people to safety) without revealing his powers, and in the process protecting his father. As shown, it was a confounding story element that introduces an unnecessary and possibly disturbing element to the Superman backstory—another disappointing choice on the part of the filmmakers.

July 22, 2011

I just got back from seeing Captain America: First Avenger, and it was, in a word, amazing.

If you're read my tribute to Captain America at The Good Men Project, you know how inspired I am by him--and if you know me personally, it won't surprise you that I was fighting back tears through the entire movie. That was my Captain America up on that screen; the movie was pitch-perfect in capturing all of his virtues: honor, courage, humility, and heroism. If you've seen the preview footage of the basic training grenade scene, that's just the tip of the iceberg--get ready for much more.

June 8, 2011

Wow, everything's coming up Miller and Mazzuchelli lately (which is fine with me): The Hollywood Reporter is... well... reporting that Fringe writer-producer David Caleb Kane is adapting the "Born Again" storyline for the Daredevil reboot movie. Not familiar with Kane, but if done well this will give the movie some cred with comics fans (just as elements of "Batman: Year One" were used in Batman Begins). And it should provide some great character moments for whomever is selected to play Matt Murdock... can I nominate Ryan Gosling? And maybe his Blue Valentine co-star Michelle Williams for the down-and-out Karen Page?

June 7, 2011

Courtesy of Bleeding Cool, here is a trailer for the animated version of Frank Miller and David Mazzuchelli's classic Batman: Year One. I don't much go in for animated superheroics (though The Incredibles made me think all that Pixar should do all superhero films), but this looks tremendous.

June 5, 2011

Just a heads up - my friend Dr. Robin Rosenberg gives her unique perspective on X-Men: First Class on her blog at Psychology Today - check it out. (Can't comment myself--saw Kung Fu Panda 2 with my daughter instead--closest thing to an Immortal Iron Fist movie we'll see for a while, and a really good one at that!)